Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order of rejection of the petitioner's representation at Annexure9 dated 27th December, 2013 issued by respondent no. 5, Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, rejecting his claim for publication of his Teachers Eligibility Test result is under challenge. Consequently, he has sought consideration of his case for publication of T.E.T result. The impugned rejection order was passed pursuant to a direction in W.P.(C) no. 3603 of 2013 dated 10th December, 2013 (Annexure-8). 3. Petitioner's case is that on account of fault in the recipient domain server i.e., website of J.A.C, his email sent on 23rd May, 2013 (Annexure-4) containing attachments in PDF Format of Teachers Training Result/Certificate could not be delivered in the office of J.A.C by the cut off date 24th May, 2013. Petitioner should not have been made responsible for technical snag in the Website of J.A.C office to refuse declaration of his result. The order of rejection, therefore, is arbitrary and without application of mind. 4. The submissions advanced on behalf of counsel for the Respondent-State on the point goes to show in terms of Adv. no. 95/2012 (Annexure1), petitioner was not an appearing candidate by cut off date 21st December, 2012 for making such application under Clause 1(ii) (Ga) of the advertisement as he had already obtained the qualification of diploma in Primary Education from Indira Gandhi National Open University in the exams held in June, 2012 as per mark-sheet dated 10th September, 2012 and the provisional certificate also of the same date Annexures: 10 and 11 enclosed to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. This provision of Clause 1(ii) (Ga) permitted the applicants who had completed the Teachers Training Course and had appeared in the Teachers Training Exam awaiting its results to appear as candidates in the T.E.T Test subject to fulfillment of condition that after holding of T.E.T they would be required to submit the relevant mark-sheet/certificate of Teachers' Training Exam through speed post in the office of J.A.C by the notified date. The applicants, who failed to submit their mark-sheet/certificate of Teachers Training Exam by 13th May, 2013 through speed post were given one more opportunity to upload their results in PDF format at email id jactet13@rediffmail.com as per corrigendum no. 25/2013 (Annexure3). The applicants, who failed to submit their mark-sheet/certificate of Teachers Training Exam by 13th May, 2013 through speed post were given one more opportunity to upload their results in PDF format at email id jactet13@rediffmail.com as per corrigendum no. 25/2013 (Annexure3). Petitioner's case is based upon the claim that he did participate in T.E.T as an appearing candidate and also made all endeavor to send his Teachers Training Certificate and mark-sheet through PDF format through email which could not be delivered for no fault of his. An automatically generated delivery status notification of failure to deliver his message as supplied by his email service provider Google is enclosed at Annexure6 in support of his claim. 5. Petitioner has also relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in W P. (C) no. 493 of 2014 dated 16 December, 2015 to buttress his contention that similar rejection on grounds of technical fault in the Website of J.A.C was looked down upon by learned Single Judge and Respondent-J.A.C was directed to furnish the result of the said petitioner. 6. Having considered all these relevant material facts on record and the submission of the parties, the whole case of the petitioner which hinges upon his claim to participate in T.E.T Exam as an appearing candidate is demolished on account of the fact that he did not come in the category of an appearing candidate in terms of the Adv. no. 95 of 2012 (Annexure1) in question. His result of Teachers Training Exam were already published before cut off date 21st December, 2012 and his representation as an appearing candidate to participate in T.E.T Exam and furnish his Teachers Training results later on is wholly untenable under the terms and conditions of the advertisement itself in question. Petitioner therefore cannot derive the benefit of the purported technical snag in the Website of Respondent-J.A.C to seek declaration of his result. Therefore, reliance of the petitioner on the judgment rendered in the case of Vinita Chaudhary (Supra) is also misplaced. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.